Gayatri Constructions vs. The State Of Ap
Held
The Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the Withheld and Earnest Money Deposits from the petitioner, especially after the completion of the defect liability period and the satisfactory completion of the work. The Court noted the respondents' submission indicating their readiness to pay the due amounts. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the Withheld, EMD, GST, and FST amounts covered under Agreement No.1/2021-22 dated 19.04.2021 to the petitioner within four weeks of receiving the order. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of not releasing deposited amounts, specifically withheld amounts and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), under Agreement No.1/2021-22 dated 19.04.2021. The petitioner claimed to have completed works in Krishna District as per agreements, with measurements recorded without defects and payments made for execution. However, the deposited amounts remained unreleased even after the defect liability period concluded. The petitioner had repeatedly approached the respondents for reimbursement. The respondents, represented by the Executive Engineer, Drainage division, Gudivada, submitted instructions indicating their readiness to pay the amounts due.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are justified in withholding the petitioner's deposited amounts (Withheld + Earnest Money Deposit) under Agreement No.1/2021-22, dated 19.04.2021, after the completion of the work and the defect liability period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the work was completed as per the agreements, verified by the respondents without any defects, and payments for execution were made. The defect liability period had also expired, yet the deposited amounts were not released, necessitating the writ petition for a direction to release these funds. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, indicated their readiness to pay the amounts due to the petitioner, implicitly acknowledging the petitioner's claim and the lack of justification for withholding the deposits.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.29593 OF 2023 ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the deposits (Withheld + Earnest Money Deposit) bill amounts under Agreement No.1/2021-22 dated 19.04.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into various agreements with the respondents under various Agreements for the works in Krishna District and he completed the work as per the agreements. Execution of work was entered into measurement book prepared by the respondent authorities without noticing any defects. The amount for execution of work was paid to the petitioner, but the Deposit amounts were not released even after completion of defect liability period. The petitioner has approached the respondents several times for reimbursement of the said Deposits. As the respondents have failed to release the Deposit amounts, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for release of the said Deposits.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned Go
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.